28 Replies

"Linux" is a generic term using to describe any collection of programs that runs the Linux kernel; RedHat Linux is a specific distribution of those variations backed by the company Red Hat. There are hundreds of distributions but the most common is business is Suse, Ubuntu, and Red Hat Enterprise. I personally use Debian for work and Gentoo at home. The biggest difference between distributions are how they manage updates and how aggressive they pull in new versions of programs

"Linux" is a generic term using to describe any collection of programs that runs the Linux kernel; RedHat Linux is a specific distribution of those variations backed by the company Red Hat. There are hundreds of distributions but the most common is business is Suse, Ubuntu, and Red Hat Enterprise. I personally use Debian for work and Gentoo at home. The biggest difference between distributions are how they manage updates and how aggressive they pull in new versions of programs

Gentoo..... i have 2 fond memories of using Gentoo. neither memory involves the install process.....

"Linux" is a generic term using to describe any collection of programs that runs the Linux kernel; RedHat Linux is a specific distribution of those variations backed by the company Red Hat. There are hundreds of distributions but the most common is business is Suse, Ubuntu, and Red Hat Enterprise. I personally use Debian for work and Gentoo at home. The biggest difference between distributions are how they manage updates and how aggressive they pull in new versions of programs

Gentoo..... i have 2 fond memories of using Gentoo. neither memory involves the install process.....

That made me chuckle - Installing a stage 1 Gentoo (dating myself a bit there) and doing an LFS setup gave me the understanding I have today of the underlying system (though I personally enjoyed both, well as long as it didn't fail b/c the docs hadn't been updated yet)

The subject of "Linux" and how it is a kernel has already been discussed. It is common to hear people refer to Linux distributions in general as Linux. Now, to specify some things:

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is generally the server version. This is the most common version when referring to Red Hat Linux. Red Hat also offers a workstation variant.

RHEL also is branded as "Red Hat" and is a distribution. To receive RHEL support and updates, you have to have an active agreement with them.

CentOS (and also Oracle Linux, Scientific Linux, and I forget the other one) are distributions that are based off RHEL. CentOS is specifically open source and free of charge. It's a good tool for learning RHEL. (https://www.centos.org/)

Linux is a kernel, a component used to build operating systems. Red Hat Enterprise Linux (often called RHEL) is a specific operating system that is built on top of the Linux kernel. Linux is never a thing by itself, it needs an OS to make it "do anything." So think of Linux as a Chevy 350 engine. And think of Red Hat Enterprise Linux as a Chevy Monte Carlo built with the 350 engine. You can think of the Monte Carlo as being a member of the "350 family" which include many cars that use the same engine. But each car is still a unique model of car.

RHEL is just one of thousands of operating systems (called distros in the Unix world) that are build using Linux as their kernel. RHEL is comparable to other operating systems also built on Linux such as Ubuntu, Suse and Fedora.

Not really. To put it into a common bench context it might be like asking "What is the difference between an Intel CPU and a Lenovo computer." One includes the other, but they are different things that are pretty easy to compare.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is generally the server version. This is the most common version when referring to Red Hat Linux. Red Hat also offers a workstation variant.

RHEL also is branded as "Red Hat" and is a distribution. To receive RHEL support and updates, you have to have an active agreement with them.

CentOS (and also Oracle Linux, Scientific Linux, and I forget the other one) are distributions that are based off RHEL. CentOS is specifically open source and free of charge. It's a good tool for learning RHEL. (https://www.centos.org/)

To add some confusion... I mean clarity....

Red Hat Linux was the name of the main Red Hat product that predated Red Hat Enterprise Linux. So was a real product, from the 1990s. RHEL is the name of both the server and desktop versions, but almost no one thinks of RHEL for desktop use, it's not good for that. And both CentOS and Fedora are distros from Red Hat today, so the term "Red Hat Linux" technically would refer equally to RHEL, Fedora and CentOS as they are all equally Linux based, and all equally from Red Hat.

About Linux Kernel
What is Linux?
Linux is a clone of the operating system Unix, written from scratch by Linus Torvalds with assistance from a loosely-knit team of hackers across the Net. It aims towards POSIX and Single UNIX Specification compliance.
It has all the features you would expect in a modern fully-fledged Unix, including true multitasking, virtual memory, shared libraries, demand loading, shared copy-on-write executables, proper memory management, and multistack networking including IPv4 and IPv6.

One by one I hear: "Linux is a kernel!" No, it is OS, based on Linux kernel!

There is no such thing as an OS called Linux. Linux itself isn't an OS and cannot be run as one. It IS just a kernel. It's simple to prove, get Linux and install it... you can't. Without an OS around it, it doesn't do anything.

People commonly use the term incorrectly to mean any Linux distro, but no one actually means that, they always mean something random but more specific. Because things like Android are just as much Linux as RHEL, but no one considered them to be related.

UNIX isn't something that you can install either. UNIX is a spec, not an OS. UNIX is not a kernel, so it is a tough comparison. UNIX is a spec for a kernel, Linux is an implementation of that kernel spec called POSIX. Talk about confusing :)

One by one I hear: "Linux is a kernel!" No, it is OS, based on Linux kernel!

There is no such thing as an OS called Linux. Linux itself isn't an OS and cannot be run as one. It IS just a kernel. It's simple to prove, get Linux and install it... you can't. Without an OS around it, it doesn't do anything.

People commonly use the term incorrectly to mean any Linux distro, but no one actually means that, they always mean something random but more specific. Because things like Android are just as much Linux as RHEL, but no one considered them to be related.

Alan. sorry, are you, somebody, that in kernel development team to say something about "what is Linux"? Kernel.org says something about the thing they are develop and you say "No, that is not right!", sorry, it seems some strange - are you sure?

One by one I hear: "Linux is a kernel!" No, it is OS, based on Linux kernel!

There is no such thing as an OS called Linux. Linux itself isn't an OS and cannot be run as one. It IS just a kernel. It's simple to prove, get Linux and install it... you can't. Without an OS around it, it doesn't do anything.

People commonly use the term incorrectly to mean any Linux distro, but no one actually means that, they always mean something random but more specific. Because things like Android are just as much Linux as RHEL, but no one considered them to be related.

Alan. sorry, are you, somebody, that in kernel development team to say something about "what is Linux"? Kernel.org says something about the thing they are develop and you say "No, that is not right!", sorry, it seems some strange - are you sure?

Very sure. This discussion has been had a lot. It's simple to prove me wrong, just go install Linux and show that it has all of the things needed to be an OS.

The statements from places like Linux.com and Kernel.org are not for IT people, they are for non-technical people who are not prepared to understand what a kernel is. So they have to say those things so that customers don't panic and run away. Linux is not an OS, it can't be. but if you feel that it is, just test it out - it's really easy to see that it doesn't work as an OS, only as a kernel.

I'm guessing you are too young to remember the GNU arguments that the OS family that people refer to as Linux is actually the GNU OS, not Linux at all. It used to be much more obvious that Linux could not be the OS.

Another really easy way to prove that Linux is not the OS.... look at Ubuntu for Windows. It's the full Ubuntu OS and yet... no Linux at all. None. The OS doesn't change, it's just a different kernel. Kernels don't even define what OS is what, let alone be the OS themselves.

About Linux Kernel
What is Linux?
Linux is a clone of the operating system Unix, written from scratch by Linus Torvalds with assistance from a loosely-knit team of hackers across the Net. It aims towards POSIX and Single UNIX Specification compliance.
It has all the features you would expect in a modern fully-fledged Unix, including true multitasking, virtual memory, shared libraries, demand loading, shared copy-on-write executables, proper memory management, and multistack networking including IPv4 and IPv6.

One by one I hear: "Linux is a kernel!" No, it is OS, based on Linux kernel!

Red Hat is highly spread enterprise-ready Linux distribution.

All the best,

Alex.

Your same link clearly states that Linux is NOT the OS...

"New to Linux?

If you're new to Linux, you don't want to download the kernel, which is
just a component in a working Linux system. Instead, you want what is
called a distribution of Linux, which is a complete Linux system."

So even kernel.org is clear that Linux is the kernel, not the OS. They use "a Linux system" as a way of referring to an operating system built using the Linux kernel, but that doesn't imply that Linux is the OS, just that OSes built on that kernel are referred to as "Linux systems." Which is still not a great naming convention, but it no way does it claim that Linux itself is the OS.

About Linux Kernel
What is Linux?
Linux is a clone of the operating system Unix, written from scratch by Linus Torvalds with assistance from a loosely-knit team of hackers across the Net. It aims towards POSIX and Single UNIX Specification compliance.
It has all the features you would expect in a modern fully-fledged Unix, including true multitasking, virtual memory, shared libraries, demand loading, shared copy-on-write executables, proper memory management, and multistack networking including IPv4 and IPv6.

One by one I hear: "Linux is a kernel!" No, it is OS, based on Linux kernel!

Red Hat is highly spread enterprise-ready Linux distribution.

All the best,

Alex.

Your same link clearly states that Linux is NOT the OS...

"New to Linux?

If you're new to Linux, you don't want to download the kernel, which is
just a component in a working Linux system. Instead, you want what is
called a distribution of Linux, which is a complete Linux system."

So even kernel.org is clear that Linux is the kernel, not the OS. They use "a Linux system" as a way of referring to an operating system built using the Linux kernel, but that doesn't imply that Linux is the OS, just that OSes built on that kernel are referred to as "Linux systems." Which is still not a great naming convention, but it no way does it claim that Linux itself is the OS.

Alan, your quote: " you don't want to download the kernel, which is just a component in a working Linux system" - that's all. kernel.org, clear that Linux is the OS, not the kernel. It's strange for me - not English native speaker, that you interpret your native language description in such a way. Try to provide the approval of your sentence Linux- is kernel in any kind of literature that is not aimed for the quote from you:

Text

are not for IT people, they are for non-technical people who are not prepared to understand what a kernel is

Alan, your quote: " you don't want to download the kernel, which is just a component in a working Linux system" - that's all. kernel.org, clear that Linux is the OS, not the kernel.

It does not say that, I quoted it so that you could see. They overly simplified it at the top and then in the middle section, which I quoted, they clarified it. However, even at the top, they compare it to UNIX which is not an OS either, which lets technical folks know that the use of the term OS is just a high level non-technical bit for the non-technies.

No matter how you want to try to twist the words, kernel.org is extremely clear in their overall tone and clarifications and statements that Linux is a kernel, not an OS. Just read the full page instead of snippets out of context. And remember you are not reading a page for technical people, so they are making high level comparisons for lay people.

But it is quite clear that Linux is not an OS. Like I said, this is trivial to prove. And no reputable source says otherwise, even the one that you think does so.

Try to provide the approval of your sentence Linux- is kernel in any kind of literature that is not aimed for the quote from you:

It's in the link that you provided as you know. And it's in the references that I had provided to you offline, did you not look through Curtis trying to make this same argument based on non-technical people trying to describe a technical thing to non-technical people?

Instead of playing games and trying to make me disprove something so silly, if you think that all IT people are wrong and that the kernel team is wrong and that Linux is an OS, just produce this OS and show us. It's that simple. Any attempt to make me prove what is obvious and in the negative is clearly a logic trick - since you are trying to make me prove that the Linux OS does NOT exist. but if it does exist, as you tell us it does, just produce it. Show us at least a link to download it. Install it and show it to us running. Something. If you believe Linux is an OS, why has no one ever seen it? The claim you make is a pretty significant one that, if true, we'd expect would take zero effort to definitely prove. Asking me to prove what is common knowledge and as you know impossible to prove in the negative, is not logical.

The term "Linux OS" is a reference to a family of OSes based on the Linux kernel, but is not an OS. It's an OS family. So calling RHEL a Linux OS is generally considered okay, although it's not accurate as the kernel is Linux and the OS is GNU + RHEL. Calling things Linux OSes has always been known to be sloppy and inaccurate, but we trust that people using it will never then claim that Linux is an OS, that's not how the term is used. And the term generally is not used to refer even to most OSes based on Linux, but only GNU ones. Otherwise things like Android are a leading Linux OS and it shares none of the things we expect to be shared in GNU/Linux based OSes.

So can you say "This is A Linux OS" about RHEL? Yes. Can you say "Linux is an OS", of course not.

And like I showed with the Ubuntu example, Ubuntu is provably the OS, and Linux a replaceable under the hood detail. So in three ways the proof is made ni real world examples:

Computer Science: Linux IS a kernel, it doesn't have the qualifications of an OS. It's that simple. If you know what a kernel and an OS are, then there is nothing more to discuss. Linux is only a kernel and doesn't meet the requirements to be an OS.

Ubuntu. We can demonstrably prove that the OS remains the same but the kernel changes underneath it. This is a great example as it is so clearly the case.

Linux OS. There just isn't such a thing. It's like claiming that unicorns are real and ignoring that no one has ever seen one. Unlike unicorns, Linux OS would be made by humans, so a human would have to have seen it.

The term "Linux OS" is a reference to a family of OSes based on the Linux kernel, but is not an OS. It's an OS family. So calling RHEL a Linux OS is generally considered okay, although it's not accurate as the kernel is Linux and the OS is GNU + RHEL. Calling things Linux OSes has always been known to be sloppy and inaccurate, but we trust that people using it will never then claim that Linux is an OS, that's not how the term is used. And the term generally is not used to refer even to most OSes based on Linux, but only GNU ones. Otherwise things like Android are a leading Linux OS and it shares none of the things we expect to be shared in GNU/Linux based OSes.

So can you say "This is A Linux OS" about RHEL? Yes. Can you say "Linux is an OS", of course not.

And like I showed with the Ubuntu example, Ubuntu is provably the OS, and Linux a replaceable under the hood detail. So in three ways the proof is made ni real world examples:

Computer Science: Linux IS a kernel, it doesn't have the qualifications of an OS. It's that simple. If you know what a kernel and an OS are, then there is nothing more to discuss. Linux is only a kernel and doesn't meet the requirements to be an OS.

Ubuntu. We can demonstrably prove that the OS remains the same but the kernel changes underneath it. This is a great example as it is so clearly the case.

Linux OS. There just isn't such a thing. It's like claiming that unicorns are real and ignoring that no one has ever seen one. Unlike unicorns, Linux OS would be made by humans, so a human would have to have seen it.

As ever I ask - may you prove it not with your mind, but with the links to the information source!